Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Brooks v. State
No. PD-0703-20 11/10/21
Issue:
Did a defendant’s statement, “I need to hit,” after physically assaulting the victim, constitute a verbal threat sufficient to prove the “threat” element of his family-violence aggravated assault offense?
Holding:
Yes. A rational jury could have concluded that the defendant’s statement constituted a verbal threat that he would continue to hit her because he needed to hit her. Although the statement was made after the physical assault started, it could have been seen as a forward-looking statement and a threat that he would continue to hit the victim, which he did. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This case will be a good one for the trial notebooks of family violence prosecutors. It could be the perfect response to motions for directed verdicts in prosecutions where the allegation centers on an assault by threat. The CCA’s straightforward application of sufficiency of the evidence precedent should dissuade trial judges from erroneously granting a motion for directed verdict. The case also shows how important the language in a charging instrument can be. More carefully chosen charging language might have made the path in this case a little easier.
Inthalangsy v. State
No. PD-1000-20 11/10/21
Issue:
Where a defendant was charged with capital murder for murdering one victim and kidnapping another, was evidence that the kidnapped victim was later murdered relevant and admissible?
Holding:
Yes. The trial court could have found that the evidence was admissible as proof of an element of the charged offense or as an extraneous but admissible offense providing context to the charged offense. Here, there was a logical nexus (and extensive circumstantial evidence) between the kidnapped victim’s death by gunshot wounds and her being restrained by deadly force, one way in which the State could prove the kidnapping element of capital murder in the course of kidnapping. In addition, the kidnapped victim’s death on the same day as the other victim’s death, coupled with all the other evidence, provided necessary context to a continuing course of conduct or admissible extraneous offense. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This case will be very helpful to prosecutors looking to decide how to go about proving the “aggravating” factor in a capital murder prosecution. The court’s discussion of the admissibility of Cassie’s death as both an element of the charged offense and as same-transaction contextual evidence is very thorough and gives prosecutors a good framework to build off/compare to when proving the “aggravating” factor in their own cases. The court’s TRE 403 analysis is also really helpful, even if it doesn’t break any new ground.
Ex parte Nicholson
Nos. WR-92, 799-2; -02; and -03 11/10/21
Issue:
Where the State appeared not to have disclosed exculpatory evidence after a defendant filed a pretrial Motion for Evidence Favorable to the Defendant, should habeas relief be granted?
Holding:
Yes. The Court granted habeas relief, agreeing that the trial court’s findings and recommendations were supported by the record.
Dissent (Yeary, J. joined by Keller, P.J.):
The defendant alleges the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady in his case. However, the record is silent on whether the State actually disclosed several items of exculpatory information. To support his claim, the defendant concludes that because his attorney did not use the information at trial, the State must not have disclosed it, but the defendant also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, which could also support the theory that his attorney had the information but chose not to use it. Because the defendant did not prove the State suppressed evidence, the Court should instead remand for further fact-finding. Read opinion.
Commentary:
Be careful with discovery. Take the time to make sure the defense has everything in the State’s possession. Hopefully, the requirements of the Michael Morton Act help us avoid similar situations in the future.
Texas Attorney General Opinion Requests
RQ-0438-KP 11/5/21
Issue:
What are the limitations of a County Judge’s Emergency Powers under §418.1015(b) of the Government Code?
Requested By:
Jenny P. Dorsey, Nueces County Attorney
RQ-0439-KP 11/5/21
Issue:
Does the exclusion of “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp” from the statutory definition of “controlled substance” preclude the prosecution of individuals for the possession and sale of delta-8 products derived from hemp?
Requested By:
Brett W. Ligon, Montgomery County District Attorney